George Clooney is Fuming at Daily Mail

The 53-year-old, two-time Academy Award winner wrote an op-ed slamming the Daily Mail for publishing an article claiming that his future mother-in-law is opposed to his upcoming marriage to human rights lawyer Amal Alamuddin due to her religious beliefs. The British publication apologized, but said the "story was not a fabrication but supplied in good faith by a reputable and trusted freelance journalist." The Daily Mail also removed the article from its website and vowed to investigate further.

Clooney fired off a second op-ed, via USA Today, just after midnight Friday.

"There is one constant when a person or company is caught doing something wrong. The coverup is always worse," he wrote. "In this case, the Daily Mail has printed an apology for insinuating religious tensions where there are none. In the apology, managing editor Charles Garside claims that the article was 'not a fabrication,' but 'based the story on conversations with senior members of the Lebanese community.' The problem is that none of that is true. The original story never cites that source, but instead goes out of its way to insist on four different occasions that 'a family friend' spoke directly to the Mail. A 'family friend' was the source. So either they were lying originally or they're lying now."

Clooney then referenced an article published on Apr. 28, 2014, where reporter Richard Spillett wrote that "Ramzi, (Amal's father), married outside the Druze faith," and a family friend said that "Baria, (Amal's mom), is not Druze." According to the Gravity actor, "The Mail knew the story in question was false and printed it anyway." He added, "What separates this from all of the ridiculous things the Mail makes up is that now, by their own admission, it can be proved to be a lie. In fact, a premeditated lie."

"So I thank the Mail for its apology. Not that I would ever accept it, but because in doing so they've exposed themselves as the worst kind of tabloid," Clooney concluded in his scathing op-ed. "One that makes up its facts to the detriment of its readers and to all the publications that blindly reprint them."